Only abstract. Paper copies of master’s theses are listed in the Helka database (http://www.helsinki.fi/helka). Electronic copies of master’s theses are either available as open access or only on thesis terminals in the Helsinki University Library.Vain tiivistelmä. Sidottujen gradujen saatavuuden voit tarkistaa Helka-tietokannasta (http://www.helsinki.fi/helka). Digitaaliset gradut voivat olla luettavissa avoimesti verkossa tai rajoitetusti kirjaston opinnäytekioskeilla.Endast sammandrag. Inbundna avhandlingar kan sökas i Helka-databasen (http://www.helsinki.fi/helka). Elektroniska kopior av avhandlingar finns antingen öppet på nätet eller endast tillgängliga i bibliotekets avhandlingsterminaler.This paper proposes to discuss the shortcomings of three popular science and technology study models - the Triple Helix, Mode 2 and Entrepreneurial Science. It also focuses on the development of supra-national and national science and technology policies and the role they have played in the commercialization of university research. The three models and innovation policies are analyzed through a case study of Helsinki University Licensing Ltd. (HUL), a technology transfer company founded in 1992 by the University of Helsinki and the Finnish National Fund for Research and Development (Sitra). The purpose of the company is to patent and license innovations developed at the University of Helsinki. The paper identifies contradictions that emerge in the patenting of research developed at the University of Helsinki, Finland's largest public research university. It deploys the concepts of technological systems, diffusion of innovations and national ideologies to problematize the ubiquity of current models and policies. The study draws on interview material, policy documents, HUL documents, patenting statistics and newspaper articles. These sources are used to argue that the three models and current innovation policy lack a critical approach in looking at the technological development of the biosciences in Finland. Innovation policies are analyzed on the supra-national and national levels and compared to the strategies that have been adopted at the University of Helsinki during the 1990s. The assumptions set forth by the models are critiqued in light of obstacles HUL has encountered with patenting and licensing. The study concludes that current innovation policies are contradictory because they encourage the broad diffusion of university research and its patenting at the same time. The patenting of research confers monopoly rights over innovations and is an effective tool for the private industry to minimize risk. At the same time, however, competition and the dissemination of information are compromised. The role of individual actors is identified as an important component of the innovation process in Finland and the success of HUL. Professional know-how is a key factor in attracting business from researchers. Finally, the models are too descriptive and neglect to account for variation among different technological systems
